Obed May 7th, 2009

Very interesting question you bring up as to whether the Christianity deals with the silence of God. I think it tends to be more of an OT concept than an NT one. You see the Psalmist and Job and Kohelet and others often discussing it. But other than Jesus' "why have thou forsaken me?" when he's on the cross, I can't really think of anything in the NT that addresses the issue.

In my personal experience, it seems that God's silence is inversely proportionate to my own.

Benjamin Charles May 8th, 2009

Crimes and Misdemeanors has more to say about God's judgment than it does his silence. If God punishes some sin, why not all sin? If you sin (crime) is not punished, then why should I assume that mine will be? That is one thing the title is trying to present as well- the seriousness of one's sin, and God's view toward it, is dependent upon the sinner.

Great show, thank you for bringing your insights, even without Melissa.

Melissa T. May 12th, 2009

In response to Obed, I don't really see the concept being more OT than NT, particularly if we are looking at both testaments from a Christocentric perspective – all the silence of God referred to in the Psalms, for example, can be interpreted to be heaped upon the Christ on the cross – Jesus is, in fact, quoting from the psalms while he is on the cross. The fact that the gospel writers draw attention to these quotations demonstrates that they are seeing the cross specifically in terms of OT silence and judgment.

Another related point: It seems to me that we can conflate the silence of God with the judgment of God (crime is punished with silence) in the moment of the crucifixion – Jesus was forsaken – God was silent – and in that silence was the judgment/punishment of God. (I wonder if alienation is a better word than silence? The horror of the cross for Jesus, surely, was in large part the alienation from the father with whom he'd had a perfect, loving, unbroken relationship with from eternity. If Augustine is right in that every person has a God-sized hole in his heart – that is, he or she is meant to be/created to be in relationship with God, silence as alienation makes a good deal of sense.)

Obed May 12th, 2009

I guess what I was inferring was that Jesus really changed something in the silence department. Not that we don't experience God's silence post-Cross, but that it's different now. Or maybe that part of Jesus' mission was to be God's answer, so to speak. I dunno. I can't really speak for other folks' experiences in this area, but for me, God's 'silence' is usually a red flag that I'm actually talking too loud for Him to be heard.

Melissa T. May 12th, 2009

Hmmm, yeah, I think we're on the same page. Jesus changed something in the silence department because that silence was concentrated on him – and so, as you say, he becomes the ultimate answer. God is, in fact, not silent. He has spoken – loudly – in the person of his son; as the gospel writer John says, he is the final Word. I rather think that our interpretation of our experiences as God's silence is often a misinterpretation – his speaking is just of a kind, perhaps, we don't want to hear. We want fireworks and emotions, maybe, not a person.

This is all, I guess, getting away from what Crimes and Misdemeanors is itself saying about the silence of God, but I've also been thinking about silence of God in terms of Romans 1, which says God is not silent – "his invisible qualities have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made" – and if humans commit crimes and he seems silent, it could be, frighteningly, because God is "giving them over" – abandoning them to their misdeeds, rather than accusing their consciences, speaking to them in that way. I certainly don't think Woody Allen is affirming this idea, but a Christian might put that Romans 1 description onto Allen's description of the experience of Judah, who committed a crime, felt guilty, but then, later didn't feel so bad – the crime devolved into a mere misdemeanor for him. A Romans 1 interpretation might say that the hardening of the conscience – the not feeling guilty – is, actually, the punishment, God speaking.

Davey June 25th, 2009

I agree–I think what's fascinating and amazing about the film is that, while Allen is pretty clearly leveling attacks against a non-existent God, it is just as possible to read Romans 1 into the ending. Allen himself has, in interviews I have read, dismissed such an interpretation and said those who think that are missing the whole point–but, much as I love and respect him, I think he may be missing something that his own film may be saying (I say "may" because I think both interpretations are valid, and both powerful). There IS something unsettling and ambiguous about Martin Landau's performance in that last scene. Is he talking about this with the Woody Allen character because his conscience won't let rest what he's done? When he leaves with a smile on his face, is he in denial of the spiritual pain and fear he's living in? Has he simply lost a conscience and become pathological? And, by extension, from an existential point of view (especially in view of God's silence), is a pathological life free of guilt preferable to one in which one is wracked with the pains of hell for every little misdemeanor they commit? A fascinating film, one of my very favorites from one of my very favorite filmmakers.